User talk:Polilogaritmo

Welcome!

Hello, Polilogaritmo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Predatory publishing did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Introduction tutorial
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Help pages
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need personal help ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. Spyder212 (talk) 12:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

Hello, I'm Spyder212. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Spyder212 (talk) 12:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Spyder212: Spyder212. Donating for a long time, but new in editing. Thanks very much for the tips. I have added a large list of Reliable Source were the fares for services I mention can be easily found. Please check and help me editing in better style. Notice discussion with Headbomb.Polilogaritmo (talk) 16:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Predatory publishing, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks @Headbomb:. What is a fact and what is an opinion is something than can be disputed. Here the whole page is about 'Predatory Publishing', and indeed you will find no single publishing house claiming they are 'Predatory'. So the issue is definitvely one about opinions. Definitively, we can accept a 'matter of fact' as something you can easily check. So likely a few things in my contribution could be 'opinions', but definitively, there are many that are not. Let me clarify what OR is in Wikipedia: "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." Now take a look at my statements:

"This includes many meant-for-profit scientific societies, which can provide a value to the scientific community, but seek to meet investors interests as a corporate goal. "
- Notice, many Publishing Houses play in the Stock Market. I was polite not mentioning them. But I could. You decide here.
"Many well known journals require charges amounting to several thousand dollars per article".
- I think this hardly deserves a quote for Academics. But I could easily add links if you think this is necessary.
"These includes payement in reseach networks, which operate as social media and promise the promotion of ones own research work"
- I quoted several social research networks and directed to the corresopnding page. Please browse to check the prices.
"Editing of grant applications in exchange of a substantial percentage of the funding".
- I quoted several webpages offering such services. Please browse to check.

I think this is a very enriching and interesting debate. Feel free to edit constructively, but do not remove the edit beofre checking the facts.

Cheers.Polilogaritmo (talk) 16:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Predatory publishing shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Headbomb:. I think the edit war is about deleting whole entries, not about reverting the full delete. You can constructively contribute by improving the text, rather than deleting plain and bold facts with citations included. Please dispute the facts about journals charging several thousand dollars per paper, bussiness charging for advertising folks papers, and fares for fancy editing grant proposals. Ill be very greatefull if you can follow WIkimedia advice "To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page ". I did not see really any discussion before you deleted my full citation entry twice. Indeed, @Headbomb:, you are strong, but please dont push the block button, this is a friendly conversation. You do seem to react fast to changes in 'Predatory Publishing' Wikipedia entry. Please @Spyder212: help with this.Polilogaritmo (talk) 16:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The place to suggest improvements is on the article's talk page. However, no one will accept your proposed changes because they constitute original synthesis/original research. What we want on Wikipedia is report the analysis of reliable sources. Not conduct our own investigation to support a personal thesis. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb: This whole entry is largely concerned with Beall's List which is essentially Beall's own opinion on the motivation and quality of some journals. Including likely many well beyond his domain of expertise. Take a look at Open Access and Article Processing Charge for plain statements of my own claims within Wikipedia. But I am glad that you do not appear to receive regularly offers for project editing, article showcasing and personal self advertising from bussiness seeking some reward out of your public funds.Polilogaritmo (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you're rambling on, but unless you want to take this to the article's talk page, we're done here. You've been warned. The next time you re-introduce this material to the article without getting consensus for it, I'll report you for edit warring. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Headbomb:, I started my first serious editing and got a constructive 'good faith edit' message from @Spyder212:. Then added citations to direct source for verification of claims and the only thing I got is full revert from you with no discussion. Every other edit I did was meant to improve the original text and add new verification sources. And each time you reverted the full text with no intention to compromise. Then on I have found threats as your only argument. What exactly is that you mean for a 'consensus' appears really a mistery to me. I presume that the consensus is that I accept your full revert for good. This is dissapointing and hardly understandable based on your Wikipedia record. 'Youve been warned' is a sad ending and poor style guide practice for a scholar discussion on WIkipedia. I will also report. Cheers from a new good faith editor on Wikipedia. Polilogaritmo (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"You've been warned" means use the article's talk page, get consensus for your changes. So far you've added the material over and over, creating a synthesis it from multiple primary sources, without justifying it. I don't believe this to be inline with what Wikipedia articles are, and I don't believe others will agree. It is possible I am wrong about this and that others would agree with you instead. However, the material is clearly disputed, and onus is on those that want to add content (i.e. you) to justify its inclusion. You do that on the article's talk page. A discussion then ensues. Consensus is then judged, and then the article is updated (or not) according with the established consensus. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Headbomb:, that is more constructive. Notice I never reintroduced text without consensus. I changed it each time adding more verifiable sources to seek for consensus, following this advice "if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it please do so" from @Spyder212:. So there never was an intention to edit warring. And I never deserved the threat of blocking my brand new user profile. Now let's seek consensus in the talk page. Regards.Polilogaritmo (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Polilogaritmo reported by User:Headbomb (Result: ). Thank you. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no edit warring here, sorry, Headbomb was too impulsive. I reverted only once his change, as I did not agree that he removed a full section under the name "Relation to Open Access Publishing". That section had been there for one year, awaiting some minor edits for improvement, but he has now merged it into "History". The change is very relevant, because the fact that some folks can see a relation to Open Access Publishing is very relevant and this strong point is now made less obvious and misplaced. Ironically, it was Headbomb one year ago who accepted that section but issued a 'Personal reflection' tag seeking for improvement. Also XOR'Easter had accepted that test in its former place for one year, but found it obvious to undo my revert one minute after my undo.

We do have a dispute on an edit "Relation to the Research Industry" where it seems likely we will need to go through conflict resolution eventually, as we are not getting a consensus. I am still waiting for him to provide any argument. The text in dispute is a five line paragraph fully referenced with verifiable sources.

I did get unintentionally into an Edit War saturday the 26th of march. It was my first time and I thought that would trigger some kind of spontaneous conflict resolution. Now I have learned how to proceed in the talk page.

Best regards and thanks for the support.Polilogaritmo (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Predatory publishing) for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Polilogaritmo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Dear Oshwah, thank you for your time to resolve this discussion and the details on how to proceed in the event of a dispute. I think that two reasons for unblocking from the Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks hold in this case: 1. "block was not necessary to prevent damage or disruption": I have explained that I violated the 3RR the 27th for lack of knowledge on the protocol for resolving conflicts. This can be easily checked, since my contributions start essentially that day, and the protocol was explained to me by Headbomb in my talk page that day. I have never violated the 3RR rule ever since and do not intead to do so, as I understand now the protocol and trust it is a smart way to resolve conflict. 2. "the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for". It is to prevent edit warring which I no longer am doing. Yerstaday I only reverted two different changes, on different places of the Predatory publishing page and opened right a way a talk page on each of these issues each such time. This does not violate the 3RR rule I believe, and it was not meant for disruption, but to have the things discussed in the talk page, following the normal protocol in the Dispute resolution page that it is better to improve a text than to delete it boldly. Thanks for your attention.Polilogaritmo (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You might not have violated 3RR, but you were still edit warring. Carefully avoiding 3RR is in some ways worse than edit warring. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Comments and plans

Its subttle, but I get it. Giving up Predatory publishing for the time being. Now working on Cabala, Hermetism and Divine right.